If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

KDE & Xfce Don't Lead To Performance Wins Over Windows 8

Phoronix: KDE & Xfce Don't Lead To Performance Wins Over Windows 8

When publishing the OpenGL performance results yesterday showing Windows 8 generally leading with a performance advantage over Ubuntu Linux, there was the usual large portion of the Linux community in disbelief. For proving a point, here are now results showing the Windows 8 Intel OpenGL performance compared to Ubuntu Linux when testing the KDE and Xfce desktops.

hah damn Michael put the whiner's in their place. I personally was interested to see these tests myself, though I didn't expect KDE would have performed better than Unity or XFCE. I was surprised to see how poorly it performed.

I think what would be a nifty test is to see how Windows 8 performs when using DX and GL versions of the same games (can be a different collection of games from the tests performed here though).

LOL, this test doesn't proof anything. It only tells that drivers under Linux are crap and shit. You could use even OpenBox and it could be same results.

And why are you doing test with games that have ioquake3 which is some years old? Try some games from Steam like Serious Sam 3 or Anomaly Warzone Earth. And start doing min/max FPS because avr FPS doesn't show real performance of graphics cards

LOL, this test doesn't proof anything. It only tells that drivers under Linux are crap and shit. You could use even OpenBox and it could be same results.

And why are you doing test with games that have ioquake3 which is some years old? Try some games from Steam like Serious Sam 3 or Anomaly Warzone Earth. And start doing min/max FPS because avr FPS doesn't show real performance of graphics cards

EXACTLY what i said before in previous tests thread Yeah, there is almost no point in testing such old games, but from other side, there is also almost no point in testing such powerfull games as serious sam 3 with intel graphics, which isnt made for performance; so we would see no difference, it would be like "max: 2 fps, min: 1 fps"

That test appeared flawed considering different specifications. Ubuntu might be one of the slow distributions and
Windows 8 was optimized for that ultrabook . I think the benchmark need a redo with the same hardware.

EXACTLY what i said before in previous tests thread Yeah, there is almost no point in testing such old games, but from other side, there is also almost no point in testing such powerfull games as serious sam 3 with intel graphics, which isnt made for performance; so we would see no difference, it would be like "max: 2 fps, min: 1 fps"

At these resolutions, i feel confident Intel could at least get 4 or 5 fps.

EXACTLY what i said before in previous tests thread Yeah, there is almost no point in testing such old games, but from other side, there is also almost no point in testing such powerfull games as serious sam 3 with intel graphics, which isnt made for performance; so we would see no difference, it would be like "max: 2 fps, min: 1 fps"

Hey, I thought you were only on this website so you could troll people. But you're agreeing with someone, which means you're failing as a troll.